Yes. This fits well with the way people already abbreviate common units with SI-prefixes such as "40 meg" for 40 MB or "15 mill" for 15 ml (millilitres). Additionally, I like how focusing on the SI-prefix highlights the divisibility by drawing a subconcious parallel with physical dimensions. I'll certainly not adopt either of the obvious, overused, and suggestively discrete terms: "bit" and "coin".

I have a fondness for both "em" and "fin" and could be won over to either but do prefer "mill" at present. Indeed, mBTC (read as "mill") has been my preferred way of communicating non-whole numbers of bitcoins for over 2 years (although recently, due to the high value, have taken to using uBTC (read as "mike") for non-whole numbers of mBTC).

That's the key, i think most people would agree that it's more logical to use mBTC and uBTC, but in terms of widespread adoption and for allowing people to relate it to 'real money', as well as getting over this 'I can't afford a whole bitcoin' aspect of adoption, using 1 BTC = 1 000 000 bits is far more user friendly and thus actually more practical.

I've seen some people say they are buying Litecoins because they 'can't afford bitcoins'.

Bits: mBTC, has an electronic feel, but if Bitcoin keeps deflating at the rate we are going, may soon be obsolete.Millis: mBTC, short for mBTC, same problem with deflation as Bits, but leads naturally to Mikeys/Mickeys for uBTC.Satoshis: Way to soon, and I expect Bitcoin value to level out (less than 12% deflation per year) long before a satoshi is worth even a penny.